DYNO RESULTS! Baseline 206whp
CAI installed 217whp
On Monday ill scan all the graphs and post them. The results seem to be pretty good!
Terry 97 Q45
Ill be putting pricing together soon for CAI kit. :ylsuper
97 Q45 Cai Dyno Results!
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Very [extremely] unusual for a Nissan designed intake to have enough resistance [pressure drop] to create a 11 HP restriction [with a brand new oem filter]. I can believe a 3.0 even a 4.0 [maybe 5.0 HP if everything was perfect] gain.As the factory engineering spec is no more than 1% loss prior to MAF. As the 97Q intake was even less restrictive than the 90-96.
But any more would go against the grain of the need to advertise more power to sell cars............the 266 could have been portrayed as 280 [gross HP] ??????????????? if 11 RWHP more were possible[11/0.787=14]? Or were all the gains above the HP peak rpm....near redline. What was the peak torque increase shown?
Not meaning to question your results but every aftermarket item I have tested always proved out less [in real world acceleration tests] than what was shown even on multiple dyno tests because of the repeatability error of chassis dyno.
If you have a chance record the MAF air flow in grams per second before and after [from OBD2 scanner tool] along with a thermocouple reading of the air flow temperature.
The high pressure point of the oem inlet design tends to give a tiny supercharging effect above 60-70 mph [nothing big close to 0.05-0.1 psi which grows to almost 0.2 psi at 120 mph]
But any more would go against the grain of the need to advertise more power to sell cars............the 266 could have been portrayed as 280 [gross HP] ??????????????? if 11 RWHP more were possible[11/0.787=14]? Or were all the gains above the HP peak rpm....near redline. What was the peak torque increase shown?
Not meaning to question your results but every aftermarket item I have tested always proved out less [in real world acceleration tests] than what was shown even on multiple dyno tests because of the repeatability error of chassis dyno.
If you have a chance record the MAF air flow in grams per second before and after [from OBD2 scanner tool] along with a thermocouple reading of the air flow temperature.
The high pressure point of the oem inlet design tends to give a tiny supercharging effect above 60-70 mph [nothing big close to 0.05-0.1 psi which grows to almost 0.2 psi at 120 mph]
-
maxnix
- Posts: 22627
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2002 8:11 pm
- Car: 1995 Infiniti Q45
1995 Infiniti Q45t
2000 Infiniti Q45
Using the same correction factor for torque 6 ft. lb. ÷ .787 = 7.62 SAE net ft. lb. above 3400 rpm. So an 11 hp @rw gain maybe possible. After all, hp is a calculated quantity. What is more important is the area under the torque curve across servicable rpm, or more succintly, the rate of change in the torque curve as rpm increases. Have to wait to see the graph.
One thing Nissan did correctly when they went from the VH45DE to the VH41DE is they did it by destroking it. Unfortunately, because the weight of the car did not decline by more than 10% and the luxurious nature of the car, they did not make it the higher revving V8 it could have been.
My guess is emissions and lack of valve overlap at high rpm may have limited the high end power also.
One thing Nissan did correctly when they went from the VH45DE to the VH41DE is they did it by destroking it. Unfortunately, because the weight of the car did not decline by more than 10% and the luxurious nature of the car, they did not make it the higher revving V8 it could have been.
My guess is emissions and lack of valve overlap at high rpm may have limited the high end power also.
-
Tgvince
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:19 am
- Car: MTB Riding, tinkering in the garage on various car projects.
- Contact:
Guys i can assure you there was nothing hokie done during the testing. I ran the car three times baseline, removed stock air box and installed the CAI and ran three more times. i took the two middle runs and graphed them together. The first run was about 1 hp more on base and CAI, the last one was about 1 hp less on both base and CAI as well...after all it was 95 degrees in the shop. We are talking about 10-11 hp here...Certianly not specatular gains nor are they un believable. I will say i expected about 5hp and am very happy with the 10-11hp...I will continue on with my development of the CAI and a full Catback exhaust as well.
Thanks for the input guys
Terry
Thanks for the input guys
Terry
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
What got my curiousity was the 217 RWHP number as this is the number we get most often [215-220] with stock 90-93 Q45.......in low mileage brand new condition at 68F at sealevel..............SAE corrected but 0% correction factor 29.92 Hg plus .........238 lb/ft of torque at peak.
Any exhaust modifications?
Any exhaust modifications?
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Most RWD Automatic with LSD - Nissan tend to look like they have a 21.5% drive line loss as we know this is not true....the way the torque convertor efficiency changes with slip.
Remember RWD tends too look like it has 2% more losses than FWD.........90 degree diff, LSD, and Dshaft center bearing bushing.
Lots of it is a function of tires [friction/slip] against the dyno roller.
Remember RWD tends too look like it has 2% more losses than FWD.........90 degree diff, LSD, and Dshaft center bearing bushing.
Lots of it is a function of tires [friction/slip] against the dyno roller.
I would really question that result. No flame, I believe you are being truthful about your results. I would want to know if the baseline dyno run was done on the same day with the same driver on the same dyno as the run with the mod. As a Viper owner we go through this all the time, very cut throat, but we bring 30 cars in on the same day with the same operator on the dyno and we REALLY learn which mods work, fun too. Having said that I have one other comment, we all try the smooth tubes. cold air box thing, we get 3-4rwp out of that, we also get about 7rwp out of catback straight pipes, no mufflers. it's really hard as Q45 Tech mentions to get that much RWP out of minor mods. Now having said ALL THAT, I'll be the first guy to buy this thing after a little more discussion, I'll even dyno the Q before and after and report. Now, who makes it? How much? and my Q is still stock, my JWT is not in yet so it would be a good test. One other question, the Viper cold air box has a significant problem, the ones made by Hennessy at least suck in rain like crazy, not a great idea on our Q45 daily drivers, any comments on that?
-
Tgvince
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:19 am
- Car: MTB Riding, tinkering in the garage on various car projects.
- Contact:
Ive kept pretty level on all the "it aint so" comments. The dyno runs were done about 20 minutes apart with the same operator on the same dyno...No changes were made to the dyno the only change was the stock box to the CAI. Also, the car was physically strapped down to the dyno, so there is no chance of slipping. In fact, the runs with the CAI were done last, so you would expect a hotter car to make even LESS horsepower/torque.
As for your Viper not responding well to aftermarket mods....Come on theyre not even in the same realm. One is designed to be a quiet luxo box and the other a factory-tuned all out HP monster....I bet if your Viper had a pair of 1 5/8ths exhaust on it, it would have shown a huge gain with those mods. On 2.0 liter Nissan SE-Rs I can show you 30-40 different dyno runs that show 5-6 WHP on a CAI....So 10WHP on a 4.1 isnt unrealistic.
Anyway, Ill post the graphs on Monday to hopefully put all of this to rest.
Terry
As for your Viper not responding well to aftermarket mods....Come on theyre not even in the same realm. One is designed to be a quiet luxo box and the other a factory-tuned all out HP monster....I bet if your Viper had a pair of 1 5/8ths exhaust on it, it would have shown a huge gain with those mods. On 2.0 liter Nissan SE-Rs I can show you 30-40 different dyno runs that show 5-6 WHP on a CAI....So 10WHP on a 4.1 isnt unrealistic.
Anyway, Ill post the graphs on Monday to hopefully put all of this to rest.
Terry
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Members please be aware that all Q have a cold air intake, in that all the engine air comes from a inlet outside the engine compartment in front of rad/condenser.
To deaden the sound of air rushing in various tuned tubes/ compartments are attached as stubs off the main plastic tube feeding the air box where the air filter resides.
Changing diameters and shapes and bends can create restrictions in the air flow paths.
The scientific method to measure these restrictions is to install a remote reading manometer either after the MAF or atop the air box after the filter and measure the vacuum drop relative to outside air pressure in inches of water.While not perfect this method can translate data to HP restriction as the engine responds the same relatively percentagewise to a loss or gain of air pressure.............1.0 psi = 6.6% more air flow..........psi is a large/coarse measurement therefore one uses inches of water which = 1/28 of a psi............resolutions down to 0.5"H2O are easily possible....0.001242%. changing in pressure.
Using this method one can compare the frictional losses of the system quite easily under load and in real world driving .......taking the dyno errors out of the picture.
To deaden the sound of air rushing in various tuned tubes/ compartments are attached as stubs off the main plastic tube feeding the air box where the air filter resides.
Changing diameters and shapes and bends can create restrictions in the air flow paths.
The scientific method to measure these restrictions is to install a remote reading manometer either after the MAF or atop the air box after the filter and measure the vacuum drop relative to outside air pressure in inches of water.While not perfect this method can translate data to HP restriction as the engine responds the same relatively percentagewise to a loss or gain of air pressure.............1.0 psi = 6.6% more air flow..........psi is a large/coarse measurement therefore one uses inches of water which = 1/28 of a psi............resolutions down to 0.5"H2O are easily possible....0.001242%. changing in pressure.
Using this method one can compare the frictional losses of the system quite easily under load and in real world driving .......taking the dyno errors out of the picture.
Not wanting to start any trouble but how can you guys question his results IF YOU NEVER TRIED IT YOURSELF, my SE-R picked up 6 peak hp, and had shown improvements up to 8 hp in the mid range with an AEM CAI , you can throw all the numbers around you want but until you DO IT you wont know, thats why we have cars and thats why we are gera heads, you tinker and tinler some more, if it works great, if it doesnt then move on, Im glade you are giving use the opportunity to have a selection of aftermarket parts, keep up the awesome work
-
Q45tech
- Moderator
- Posts: 14296
- Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 3:19 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 342,400 miles 22 years ownership with original engine
1995 G20t 5 speed 334,000 miles 16" 2002 wheels - 205/50/16 Sr20ve vvl
Don't think we are questioning the results per se, just the methology. The repeatable accuracy of chassis dyno is less than stellar. Throwing out numbers without rigorous controls even publishing dyno charts is less than accurate as they are the easiest things in the world to jeep.
!!!The owner may not even be aware the numbers are tainted. Presenting them in perfectly good faith!!!!
Unfortunately a chassis dyno is usually all one has for inexpensive same car comparisons.
The primary unintentional errors come from not measuring and reporting temperature changes of the fluids, tires and dyno rollers.
Not returning the engine to baseline [back to stock] and doing another series of measurements is the typical fault......as the hotter the oil [rear diff especially] the lower the frictional losses will be.
http://www.depac.com/applications.htmht ... ts.htm#TOP
"Every dyno tuning shop we’ve spoken to claims to be honest, and yet we often get letters from readers who have been shown before-and-after graphs to prove that there has been a worthwhile increase in power, but they’ve noticed no difference on the road. It’s not always a question of dishonesty, it also comes about because the operator, or mechanic, is seldom sufficiently trained, and does not understand the effect of some of the errors he’s introducing into the measurement process. "
http://www.maha-usa.com/en/files/0523b03v.pdf"Chassis dynos are great tuning aids but they only give a approximation of power output as some of the important variables are not accurately controlled. Certain magazines seem to think that results obtained from chassis dynos are the gospel. They are not. In one recent independent test, hp figures varied by 11% simply by doing the runs in different gears and in another test, results varied by almost 4 % by doing the runs with a different wheel/tire combination. Tire alignment has been shown to affect results up to 3% as well. Note that Engine hp DID NOT change here yet the dyno recorded an increase in hp at the wheels. One can only conclude that inaccurate moments of inertia and correction factors are being used."http://toyotaperformance.com/dyno.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htm
!!!The owner may not even be aware the numbers are tainted. Presenting them in perfectly good faith!!!!
Unfortunately a chassis dyno is usually all one has for inexpensive same car comparisons.
The primary unintentional errors come from not measuring and reporting temperature changes of the fluids, tires and dyno rollers.
Not returning the engine to baseline [back to stock] and doing another series of measurements is the typical fault......as the hotter the oil [rear diff especially] the lower the frictional losses will be.
http://www.depac.com/applications.htmht ... ts.htm#TOP
"Every dyno tuning shop we’ve spoken to claims to be honest, and yet we often get letters from readers who have been shown before-and-after graphs to prove that there has been a worthwhile increase in power, but they’ve noticed no difference on the road. It’s not always a question of dishonesty, it also comes about because the operator, or mechanic, is seldom sufficiently trained, and does not understand the effect of some of the errors he’s introducing into the measurement process. "
http://www.maha-usa.com/en/files/0523b03v.pdf"Chassis dynos are great tuning aids but they only give a approximation of power output as some of the important variables are not accurately controlled. Certain magazines seem to think that results obtained from chassis dynos are the gospel. They are not. In one recent independent test, hp figures varied by 11% simply by doing the runs in different gears and in another test, results varied by almost 4 % by doing the runs with a different wheel/tire combination. Tire alignment has been shown to affect results up to 3% as well. Note that Engine hp DID NOT change here yet the dyno recorded an increase in hp at the wheels. One can only conclude that inaccurate moments of inertia and correction factors are being used."http://toyotaperformance.com/dyno.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htm
-
Tgvince
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:19 am
- Car: MTB Riding, tinkering in the garage on various car projects.
- Contact:
Q45tech:
Im wondering what measurement techniques you trust. This is a comparative analysis that is used by many trusted people to provide REPEATABLE estimations of horsepower/torque output. Its clear to me that we're not discussing the reliability of my results; you are questioning everything to do with a chassis dyno.
I would be skeptical myself comparing two different dyno's or two different cars on two different days, but an acceptable baseline was acquired and used to give an ESTIMATE of the gains after adding the CAI. The measurement technique was identical, and unless you can come up with a reason why 3 measurements would suddenly increase by ~10 whp after changing the intake, I just dont see how you can question the comparative analysis unless you are questioning me as the administrator.
Your attitude would probably refute quartermile and 60-ft times all day long as well. Im wondering if youve ever measured anything, or just believe that all measurements are inaccurate.
What on earth is "no difference on the road"? How do you measure that? Is that how loud you say "oh ****" when you take a turn? If thats the kind of measurement youll accept, before ever running the dyno tests, I took the traction control off with the CAI installed and the car broke loose immediately (unlike with the stock intake). To me thats a way less trustable 'measurement' because it's all opinion -- but thats 'on the road' for you.
Im not going to take pressure readings across the intake, because regardless of how accurately the pressure readings are, they are meaningless unless I can turn them into horsepower/torque. How are you going to prove to me that X% flow restriction equates to Y% horsepower? What measurement techniques are YOU going to use?
You can quote all the math formulas that you read out of a book somewhere or someone else's opinion on why dyno's are a waste of time, but you will be left with pretty much no way to tune or compare one modification to an another.
The car was driven from Phoenix to Tucson and onto the dyno. It wasnt rested overnight to overly skew the results by your claims of fluid viscosity changes. Not that you would accept any dyno result anyway, but I can do the test in reverse and measure the CAI performance first. By your logic, you would expect the stock intake to have a more favorable result. I did not change wheels or tire alignment, and ran the car in the same gear for all 6 runs. I didnt even take the car off the dyno between runs so everything was strapped down the same as well.
Everything you are throwing at me is theory. It's not like Im claiming a 50 hp increase from this intake. The increase is COMPLETELY reasonable when looking at the increases on other cars, and is repeatable with my measurement techniques.
Anyway, what all this means is we're going to have a very hard time discussing any of this if you have deep-seeded distrust of the chassis dyno. Im not going to be able to convince you of anything if you dont trust the measurement device.
I tell you one thing though, Ive learned not to post the results before having the graphs scanned. Its irritating that this amount of discussion exploded before I even have the evidence to show you.
Terry97 Q4592 Classic SE-R with 220 "DYNO" WHP.
Im wondering what measurement techniques you trust. This is a comparative analysis that is used by many trusted people to provide REPEATABLE estimations of horsepower/torque output. Its clear to me that we're not discussing the reliability of my results; you are questioning everything to do with a chassis dyno.
I would be skeptical myself comparing two different dyno's or two different cars on two different days, but an acceptable baseline was acquired and used to give an ESTIMATE of the gains after adding the CAI. The measurement technique was identical, and unless you can come up with a reason why 3 measurements would suddenly increase by ~10 whp after changing the intake, I just dont see how you can question the comparative analysis unless you are questioning me as the administrator.
Your attitude would probably refute quartermile and 60-ft times all day long as well. Im wondering if youve ever measured anything, or just believe that all measurements are inaccurate.
What on earth is "no difference on the road"? How do you measure that? Is that how loud you say "oh ****" when you take a turn? If thats the kind of measurement youll accept, before ever running the dyno tests, I took the traction control off with the CAI installed and the car broke loose immediately (unlike with the stock intake). To me thats a way less trustable 'measurement' because it's all opinion -- but thats 'on the road' for you.
Im not going to take pressure readings across the intake, because regardless of how accurately the pressure readings are, they are meaningless unless I can turn them into horsepower/torque. How are you going to prove to me that X% flow restriction equates to Y% horsepower? What measurement techniques are YOU going to use?
You can quote all the math formulas that you read out of a book somewhere or someone else's opinion on why dyno's are a waste of time, but you will be left with pretty much no way to tune or compare one modification to an another.
The car was driven from Phoenix to Tucson and onto the dyno. It wasnt rested overnight to overly skew the results by your claims of fluid viscosity changes. Not that you would accept any dyno result anyway, but I can do the test in reverse and measure the CAI performance first. By your logic, you would expect the stock intake to have a more favorable result. I did not change wheels or tire alignment, and ran the car in the same gear for all 6 runs. I didnt even take the car off the dyno between runs so everything was strapped down the same as well.
Everything you are throwing at me is theory. It's not like Im claiming a 50 hp increase from this intake. The increase is COMPLETELY reasonable when looking at the increases on other cars, and is repeatable with my measurement techniques.
Anyway, what all this means is we're going to have a very hard time discussing any of this if you have deep-seeded distrust of the chassis dyno. Im not going to be able to convince you of anything if you dont trust the measurement device.
I tell you one thing though, Ive learned not to post the results before having the graphs scanned. Its irritating that this amount of discussion exploded before I even have the evidence to show you.
Terry97 Q4592 Classic SE-R with 220 "DYNO" WHP.
-
Tgvince
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:19 am
- Car: MTB Riding, tinkering in the garage on various car projects.
- Contact:
DYNO GRAPHS
Heres a close up of the HP
Terry
Terry
-
Tgvince
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:19 am
- Car: MTB Riding, tinkering in the garage on various car projects.
- Contact:
DYNO GRAPH
Heres the full chart.
Terry
Terry
-
Q451990
- Moderator
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2002 8:21 am
- Car: 1990 Q45 - 118K, 2022 Toyota 4 Runner, 2004 Frontier M/T - 108K, 2012 Xterra (Mom's), 2023 Rogue (Inlaws)
- Location: Columbia, SC
- Contact:
Terry,
Thanks for the graphs! I don't mean to speak for Q45Tech, but I'd think his skepticism is based on real-world disappointments with the various mods he's tried on the 1st gen. Q. I know he's tried hundreds of angles on mods, but with very little success outside of the updated ECU and suspension mods. On the older Q45 it appears that the factory maxed out the engine (within reasonable safety ranges).
I guess the other question we all have, is that it's just amazing that Nissan would have overlooked a simple modification that would have gotten them higher HP numbers than the previous model, rather than slightly lower. Maybe they de-tuned the 97-01 for some reason... who knows?
In any case, I hope you're right and I'd love it if you can develop something for the older Q's too!!!
Heath
Thanks for the graphs! I don't mean to speak for Q45Tech, but I'd think his skepticism is based on real-world disappointments with the various mods he's tried on the 1st gen. Q. I know he's tried hundreds of angles on mods, but with very little success outside of the updated ECU and suspension mods. On the older Q45 it appears that the factory maxed out the engine (within reasonable safety ranges).
I guess the other question we all have, is that it's just amazing that Nissan would have overlooked a simple modification that would have gotten them higher HP numbers than the previous model, rather than slightly lower. Maybe they de-tuned the 97-01 for some reason... who knows?
In any case, I hope you're right and I'd love it if you can develop something for the older Q's too!!!
Heath
-
Tgvince
- Posts: 297
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:19 am
- Car: MTB Riding, tinkering in the garage on various car projects.
- Contact:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Q451990 "]Terry,
"I guess the other question we all have, is that it's just amazing that Nissan would have overlooked a simple modification that would have gotten them higher HP numbers than the previous model, rather than slightly lower. Maybe they de-tuned the 97-01 for some reason... who knows?"
Heres how i see this. Nissan designed the car to be ultra quiet. You dont think that quiet design gave up a .5% in HP? I dont think thats unconcievable. As a side bar have you looked at the 97 q45 exhaust? First thing i noticed was the size or the lack there of it, second was those funky little weight looking things attached at abot four different points....Its clear to me that they wanted this car to be as quiet as possible. Im sure they compremised between quiet and HP....Just look at the Indy engine, ours is a bit off from the 750hp they get out of those:) Now thats all out....What we got was a Luxo model Not a ultimate HP designed car.
Terry 97 Q4592 classic SE-R 220WHP=maxed out stock MAF.
"I guess the other question we all have, is that it's just amazing that Nissan would have overlooked a simple modification that would have gotten them higher HP numbers than the previous model, rather than slightly lower. Maybe they de-tuned the 97-01 for some reason... who knows?"
Heres how i see this. Nissan designed the car to be ultra quiet. You dont think that quiet design gave up a .5% in HP? I dont think thats unconcievable. As a side bar have you looked at the 97 q45 exhaust? First thing i noticed was the size or the lack there of it, second was those funky little weight looking things attached at abot four different points....Its clear to me that they wanted this car to be as quiet as possible. Im sure they compremised between quiet and HP....Just look at the Indy engine, ours is a bit off from the 750hp they get out of those:) Now thats all out....What we got was a Luxo model Not a ultimate HP designed car.
Terry 97 Q4592 classic SE-R 220WHP=maxed out stock MAF.